Mediator proposes $20 million settlement in Trump's CBS lawsuit, WSJ reports
Source: Reuters
June 25, 2025 2:08 PM EDT Updated 3 hours ago
June 25 (Reuters) - A mediator has proposed that Paramount Global (PARA.O) and U.S. President Donald Trump settle his lawsuit against CBS News over an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris for $20 million, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.
The proposal would include a $17 million donation to Trump's presidential foundation or museum, as well as millions more in legal fees and public service announcements on Paramount-owned networks to fight antisemitism, the report said, citing people familiar with the matter.
The White House did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. Paramount declined to comment.
Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS in October, alleging the network deceptively edited a "60 Minutes" interview with then-vice president and presidential candidate Harris to "tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party" in the election. In an amended complaint filed in February, Trump bumped his claim for damages to $20 billion.
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/mediator-proposes-20-million-settlement-trumps-cbs-lawsuit-wsj-reports-2025-06-25/

sinkingfeeling
(56,011 posts)Hope22
(4,074 posts)Simple insanity.
Wiz Imp
(6,305 posts)since there is no basis for it.
However, at this point I probably wouldn't blame CBS for accepting the mediator proposal, as going to court will likely end up costing them close to $20 million anyway.
Would Trump accept a settlement of 1/1000th of what he was seeking, though? Doubtful. But he would be smart if he did because he has no chance of winning in court.
Scalded Nun
(1,455 posts)Seems like a good time to resurrect that quote.
choie
(5,894 posts)trump shouldn't receive 1 cent.
cstanleytech
(27,810 posts)PSPS
(14,758 posts)With the FCC now thoroughly corrupted by trump appointees, the acquisition won't be approved unless Redstone pays the required ransom to trump.
That's too bad, because the whiny toddler should not get one red cent for his tantrum. It just encourages him to hold companies hostage, too.
I didn't see the interview, but I've never understood how it supposedly tipped the scales in her favor. And since he, "won," anyway, what's his beef?
BumRushDaShow
(157,394 posts)It's his obsession with carefully managing his "image" and a "warning" to other outlets that HE now has the authority and power to control what content should or should not be broadcast, or else the broadcaster will face a lawsuit from what are the "endless deep pockets" of the federal government, which will be paying the bill to enforce the mandate.
It's basically misuse of government resources and a violation of the First Amendment.